FX5900 Ultra: Wich brand to get ?

"JC" wrote in message
...
: Hello
: I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around
and I see
: several brands with some price diferences.
: Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is
not relevant
: ??
: TIA
:
: JC
:
:
I prefer eVGA simply because of their great website,
knowledgeable tech support, and unrivaled customer service.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:44:03 -0400, "JC"
wrote:

Hello
I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around and I see
several brands with some price diferences.
Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is not relevant
??
TIA

JC

go for the one built by ATI... its faster

Thanks, that is in fact very important these days when buying something.
Will go take a look on them.

JC

"loonym" wrote in message
...

"JC" wrote in message
...
: Hello
: I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around
and I see
: several brands with some price diferences.
: Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is
not relevant
: ??
: TIA
:
: JC
:
:
I prefer eVGA simply because of their great website,
knowledgeable tech support, and unrivaled customer service.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"OverKlocker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:44:03 -0400, "JC"
wrote:

Hello
I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around and I see
several brands with some price diferences.
Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is not
relevant
??
TIA

JC

go for the one built by ATI... its faster

No such thing. ATI does sell the slower 9800 Pro as an option though.

Funny, all the benchmarks I have read put the FX5900 Ultra ahead of the ATI
9800 Pro and in some cases, the FX just smokes the Radeon. I have been an
NVidia user for many years, though this time I was considering between the
FX and Radeon, but the reviews I have read leave no doubts that at this
monent the FX is a clear better choice.

JC


"OverKlocker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:44:03 -0400, "JC"
wrote:

Hello
I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around and I see
several brands with some price diferences.
Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is not
relevant
??
TIA

JC

go for the one built by ATI... its faster

"JC" wrote in message
...
Hello
I am looking to buy an FX5900 Ultra card, been looking around and I see
several brands with some price diferences.
Could anyone advise me if there is a brand of choice or it is not relevant
??

I'd go for an MSI if absolutely must have a GFX 5900 Ultra. The cooling
solutions seems to be quiter and more effircient than other brands.
---
Anders

that URL shows they used the 44.03 drivers and WHAT custom built
benchamraks?? UTK2k3 ??? LOL, it is knowed that the 45.23 show a performance
boost, and that site clearly show diferent result then Tom's Hardware where
the FX beats the ATI across the board. Who to trust ??

JC


"Anders Albrechtsen" wrote in message
k...

"JC" wrote in message
...
Funny, all the benchmarks I have read put the FX5900 Ultra ahead of the
ATI
9800 Pro and in some cases, the FX just smokes the Radeon.

Funny, I've only seen the GFX 5900 Ultra ahead of the Radeon 9800 Pro in
standard synthetic benchmark such as UT2003 where nVidia's "optimizations"
inflate the scores. In other tests such as this one
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...3x5900u&page=1 where only
costum built benchamrks are used the 5900 Ultra is left behind in the
dust.
Read and weep ;-)

I have been an
NVidia user for many years, though this time I was considering between
the
FX and Radeon, but the reviews I have read leave no doubts that at this
monent the FX is a clear better choice.

I must say that you're very biased since at least half of the reviews
paint
another picture.
---
Anders

"JC" wrote in message
...
that URL shows they used the 44.03 drivers and WHAT custom built
benchamraks?? UTK2k3 ??? LOL, it is knowed that the 45.23 show a
performance
boost, and that site clearly show diferent result then Tom's Hardware
where
the FX beats the ATI across the board. Who to trust ??

Do you yourself a favor and read the article before posting. Some of the
tests are non-standard bechmarks where "driver optimizations" don't work.
This goes for Vice City and Warcraft III. In regards to the "improvements"
of the 45.23 I only see them in constum benchmarks such as 3D Mark 03 and UT
2003. Could we have some proof in the form of real world benchmarks?
---
Anders

If they are non-standart, then they could have been choosen to favor, let's
say, ATI ??
Just wondering.

JC


"Anders Albrechtsen" wrote in message
k...

"JC" wrote in message
...
that URL shows they used the 44.03 drivers and WHAT custom built
benchamraks?? UTK2k3 ??? LOL, it is knowed that the 45.23 show a
performance
boost, and that site clearly show diferent result then Tom's Hardware
where
the FX beats the ATI across the board. Who to trust ??

Do you yourself a favor and read the article before posting. Some of the
tests are non-standard bechmarks where "driver optimizations" don't work.
This goes for Vice City and Warcraft III. In regards to the "improvements"
of the 45.23 I only see them in constum benchmarks such as 3D Mark 03 and
UT
2003. Could we have some proof in the form of real world benchmarks?
---
Anders

"JC" wrote in message
...
If they are non-standart, then they could have been choosen to favor,
let's
say, ATI ??

If they are non-standard you eliminate the possibility of driver cheats
which inflate performance.

Just wondering.

One should ALWAYS wonder, especially when new driver significantly improve
performance in fixed benchmarks. Nvidia has been caught with their hands in
cookie jar more than once so I simply do not trust fixed benachmarks
anymore. They also disabled trilinear filtering to improve UT2003
perfornance (read: inflate benchmark scores) so I find UT 2003 benchmark
scores completely unreliable since you're comparing apples and bananas. Some
report that the latest leaked detonator FX drivers correct this issue, but
let's see.

Bottom line:
The GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is in my opinion not significally faster or better
than the Radeon 9800 Pro as you stated. One thing is raw performance another
thing is image quality. In the latter department Nvidia still has some work
to do before they catch up.

Peace :-)
---
Anders